Something I just wrote in a referee report: Post your numbers now, not later

The following is the last paragraph in a (positive) referee report I just wrote. It's relevant for lots of other articles too, I think, so I'll repeat it here:

Just as a side note, I recommend that the authors post their estimates immediately; I imagine their numbers will be picked up right away and be used by other researchers. First, this is good for the authors, as others will cite their work; second, these numbers should help advance research in the field; and, third, people will take the estimates seriously enough that, if there are problems, they will be uncovered. It makes sense to start this process now, so if anything bad comes up, it can be fixed before the paper gets published!

I have to admit that I'm typically too lazy to post my estimates right away; usually it doesn't happen until someone sends me an email request and then I put together a dataset. But, after writing the above paragraph, maybe I'll start following my own advice.

More like this

John Hawks, in his paleodreams. I mean that in the best way.
Several news outlets have reported that the commission appointed by President Obama to study the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill has issued preliminary reports that are sharply critical of the Obama administration's handling of the disaster.
I argued that the estimate of 200,000 DG woundings derived from Kleck's survey (p163 of TG) was inconsistent the estimate of 7700-18,500 DG woundings on page 164 of TG. Kleck accuses me of sloppy reading for not noting that the p 164 estimate is for medically
Eugene Volokh writes: (Incidentally, am I mistaken in thinking that it's the NCVS numbers which are usually cited to show that self-defense with a firearm decreases the likelihood of injury, compared to no self-defense?)